| 1 |
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't |
| 4 |
> > anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> - rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
What technical reason is there to use a markup that's more work for |
| 9 |
those of us doing the writing? Writing XML is a huge pain in the ass |
| 10 |
compared to latex. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> - use EBNF when describing a syntax. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Is there any indication that this is any clearer? EBNF gets messy when |
| 15 |
it comes to describing the whitespace rules, for example. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> - split it and version each functional part. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> - define EAPI as an aggregate of those versions in a separate part. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
From a package manager implementer's perspective, that's a mess. It |
| 22 |
means looking all over the place to find relevant information on, say, |
| 23 |
what a package dep spec looks like. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives